In a straight McGrath Vs Davidson contest I would agree that McGrath is the better bowler. Although by not that much.

However, some RH batsman don't like facing left-armers who swing the ball back into the stumps. So, you might like to include Davidson for the sake of some left-arm variety if you already have Lillee and Miller in the team.

So the question is not really McGrath Vs Davidson but rather;

Lillee-McGrath-Miller Vs Lillee-Davidson-Miller Vs McGrath-Davidson-Miller, as your Aussie pace attack. And that's a tougher question than the original proposition!

This too

And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

I think people are trying to reinvent the wheel, just to be different. Mcgrath makes out AT XI first team, and was a key member of one of the greatest teams in history. I do think that in a way he benefitted from the overall lack of quality bowlers in the 00's but he is an automatic choice for the 11alobg with Lillee and Miller and if he had to make way for anyone it would be for Lindwall.

As far as England then is concerened, Larwood, Snow, Bedser or Tate? Also since it was raised Pietersen or Barrington. I would go for Pietersen and Snow myself, but know how highly some rate Larrwood, so would suggest Larwood and Pietersen.

- am I right in saying everyone is picking Warne, O'Reilly and Lillee in the AT Australian side? In which case I think one of Lindwall or Davidson to bat at 8 is a pretty reasonable call, much as I admire McGrath.

- Barrington averaged 77 at number 3, and only 41 at number 5. So if you're going to pick him in an England all-time side, pick him at number 3. But then most people don't want to pick all of Hobbs, Hutton and Sutcliffe because having Hutton or Sutcliffe at number 3 will mean two very slow players in the top order. So how does Barrington fit into the mix?

- also don't understand the Larwood love. If you want to pick someone just because they're quick, pick Tyson, who averaged 10 runs per wicket less.

I think people (including myself) are picking Larwood based on his domination of English country cricket in the 1930s, rather than his test record, which he was never allowed to build on after the Bodyline series.